Fatfrancesa

And that is just one gem from that particular person. He's had many.

i enjoy your posts when you focus your passion and do your research. passion supported by logic and links equals food for thought.

 

mods give warnings in threads and pms to users. when users proceed on same course and antagonize, infractions.

 

you can learn from feedback or follow the same patterns.

 

‘the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results’ albert einstein

Sorry Fletch I don't agree. I just posted a thread that somebody with my lean gets infracted for and their post removed. That post has been there for over 24 hours. Insanity is trying to reason with unreasonable people.

 

In a political thread that post is antagonizing. I have learned as Im not posting in the political forum anymore. I can still shine the light on what is happening there and the disgraceful way its being handled.

Fatty, u aint going to win many battles here. I suggest u let it go. I mean, a hyper partisan liberal called me a racist and nothing was done about it. But u call someone naive and u get infracted.

 

They don't see it as hyper partisan and that's the problem. That post I referenced was made yesterday at 7pm. I post something like that and I'm banned within minutes and my post is scrubbed from the Chinese database.

I think it's a bit of wishful thinking to say that they hate him but won't poll that way. It might be fair to say that they hate him but fear the backlash of potentially becoming the target of his latest Twitter tantrum.

 

Trump as a phenomenon is a deal with the devil for the GOP. They bargained that they'd be able to get judges, Supreme Court seats, tax cuts for their donors, and deregulation in exchange for having the face of the GOP be...well...Trump. A narcissistic, racist, criminal simpleton in exchange for control of the judiciary and a massive influx of donor wealth. I doubt they had "committed acts of treason to get elected" high on the list of things they'd have expected.

 

That it's an acceptable trade in the minds of a subset of Americans is questionable at best: the tax cuts were a money funnel from the average guy to the rich guy (and ain't nobody on this board rich by these standards), the control of the judiciary is subversive of the checks and balances system, deregulation has serious consequences for literally everyone, and don't even get me started on the Supreme Court. That nominations are even subject to partisan stalling is an incredible abuse of the system.

 

 

That was posted in the political thread. Im bringing it here because I want to know maybe Im just crazy but would seriously like people to see my point.

 

Read the second paragraph. I have been banned and infracted for posting hyper partisan shit. How in the world is that paragraph not the very definition of hyper partisan? If I posted something along those lines about Obama or anyone other than Trump I would get warned at the very least and the post would be removed. Please just give me an explanation of why this post is ok? What kind of response does this post expect to get from somebody who isn't in lockstep politically with person? You allow this, then infract or publicly warn me for being hyper partisan. Please explain

You're not being attacked, dude. Get off the cross. I used you as an example of how a user — any user — can cause a divide by not holding status quo opinions. That's it. There's nothing else to that reference.

 

Who attacked you? Report those posts.

 

Forget it dude. Im not saying that. Im not on a cross, that's your words. I already told you Im fine with your explanation.

Because he's a well-liked player. Again, I was illustrating a point, not litigating the value of his contract relative to age. We've got a thread for that.

 

I know phil. I’m good with your explanation. It makes sense. But as I stated in the panarin thread, you guys ask for help starting threads. Someone posts one about Quinn and gets ripped for overreacting same with the panarin thread. Not sure why anyone wants to bother? Some people have things to add, others not so much other than to attack the op

Of course though half the response here attack the very idea of the thread. So why bother.

Too early? The mods asked for threads to be started for discussion on this board. If we are judging right now panarin has been a success but the team hasn’t. This thread wasn’t started as a criticism it was stArted to keep a record of his tenure here. This thread should last all 7 years. To discuss the glorious times for panarin and hopefully few if any low points. Hopefully I eat crow but it can all be kept here as people’s minds change or don’t.

I was illustrating a point about you holding an unconventional (relative to the forum) opinion that ruffles feathers and how that proves that politics aren't the only thing that do so. There's no problem.

 

Ok. But why does that ruffle people’s feathers? I don’t hate panarin the player. I hate the signing. Mostly because of the risk. Right now we are getting the prime panarin and he’s been great. We are also getting the rest of the team that isn’t ready for prime time. My issue was always when the team is ready what will panarin be? The guy right now or an anchor contract holding back the team? We’ll see.

There are other outlets for hockey, too. They're both the same, in fact. Twitter.

 

I come back to my two points earlier:

 

1. If there's simply more hockey discussion occurring, there's less political dominance, mitigating the negative carry-over effect, if not eliminating it.

 

2. We're punishing the many for the actions of the few when we don't do the same on any other topic. Not to single him out, but again, Francessa springs to mind. He's as divisive as they come on Panarin, who is a critical component of the team for the next seven years. That's seven years of criticism ahead of us we're going to be dealing with, in all likelihood.

 

If the solution re: politics is to shutter the doors on it because a vocal minority are making life more difficult, then how does the same solution not apply to hockey? It's a slippery slope fallacy to a degree, I admit, but the principle is rooted in logic. Why is the onus not simply on the user to not engage in topics they don't wish to? Why are we in the business of censoring every day (current) events for everyone who doesn't violate forum rules simply because those that do are loud?

 

If the dog bites, you muzzle it. You don't exterminate the breed.

 

As to the value: information. I've learned a ton simply by participating in conversations with people I'm unlikely to elsewhere (given I don't run in conservative circles, and given the toxicity around discussing politics and religion is so much worse on Facebook and/or Twitter). To me, the forum offers a unique platform in that it's not designed explicitly for politics, but can be used to discuss current events under more rigid rules that lift up discourse and debate while pushing down rhetoric and overt partisanship.

 

Seriously? What does my position on panarin have to do with anything? I was against signing him. He?s been great up to this point but the team sucks. Much of my original point to not wanting him was the timing not the player. But regardless how does my opinion about Artemi Panarin become a problem because I may criticize him for the next 7 years? Is this not exactly what this board is for? To talk rangers hockey? Being that you brought it up highlights the problem though. You view my criticism of signing him as some kind of trolling or something. I don?t get it.

 

Is it the thread I started after you asked for people to start threads for conversation? What?s the problem?

 

Lastly. I just entered the political forum recently and have stayed away since my last ban. So my hatred of Pete was long solidified before anything political.

I thought Lindgren looked better then Hajek in pre-season but what do I know.

 

So did i

Why Fox?

 

So he can develop getting top minutes and top power play time too. Also with kakko, chytil and Kravtsov down there as well Fox can grow with them all helping each other on talent alone. Success in Hartford would help everybody there. Having them in New York right now is not the end of the world but neither is having them overmarinating in Hartford. Just my opinion

You want threads, here you go.

 

The signing of Artemi Panarin for $11plus million for 7 years was applauded by most. I obviously hated it. The issue is not the talent of the player, though I do value wings as far less valuable than A center or defenseman. He?s even been off to pretty good start. Problem is this team is loaded with holes and seemingly miles away from contending. So the question then and now is the same. Was it smart to tie up so much cap space on a wing At this stage of a rebuild. How old will panarin be when this team is ready to benefit from his services and contend.

 

I?m posting this for conversation and for a timeline of his tenure here and how opinions evolve.

Smith has actually played well. Probably should be playing defense but with the role he’s been given he’s done it well. Most of the team can’t say the same.

Does it? It doesn't for me. At all. Hell, I can go from a nuclear heat-level political thread to purely jovial in another and not bat an eyelash.

 

Or you can just ban the guy who doesn?t agree. I get it, it?s the rules. Problem is you tightrope the rules in that thread yourself. Yet you?re judge and jury. What?s the answer? Just have a free for all thread. Where nothing is off limits. It?s just words. Have a thread that is there to call out one another without fear of banning or any punishment. Of course threats and such would be cause for action but being able to call someone Pompous for posting a dictionary meaning of a word is just that. So let there be a thread where Pete can call me a mother fucker and so on.

Kakko got 9:51 of ice. Brendan Smith was on every other shift in the 3rd.

 

Are we gonna have to start talking about sending Kakko down? What is going on here?

 

I think they should send both kakko and fox down.

Phil while you may like to have other moderators infractions those in arguments with you, in reality it is you that had infracted most of the time. It is you that warns me that my rhetoric is to partisan, all the while your rhetoric is the same. You then infract me or ban me for doing much of what you do. When I don’t relent I get banned. I have reported mods. I have also sending questions with my reports. They are rarely answered in any timely manner if at all. Usually I get an infraction or a banning before a response ever comes. Regardless it is what it is. I brought it up here because it seems to be the only way to get an actual discussion of what is going on. I’m not the only one who feels like leaning right gets you little tolerance in the political section. Obviously Phil you are very impassioned with politics. Could you possibly believe your a good arbitrator in a political thread? In the hockey thread there is mainly one user here that invites everyone here at some point. But his belligerence is pretty much there in every thread. Some try and back off and play nice. I know of at least one posted who used to contribute all the time that has left because of the moderators inaction towards this person. Yes Pete you.

Correct. It's not a hard-and-fast rule, but I've long suggested to the Staff not to discipline their own arguments. It's not always possible given timing, who is online at the time, and severity of the infraction (among other things), but as a general rule of thumb, we do our best to handle disciplinary issues in this manner.

 

 

 

Nah. No one plays by different rules. This is a timeless trope of the internet — especially on forums — whenever a user gets in trouble. It's like the default position for the majority of internet users to take because despite the utter lack of evidence, saying so paints them in a more advantageous light. Break a rule, get an infraction. Staff members seldom break rules, which is why they are on Staff. If and when they become problematic, they're no longer retained as Staff members (this is not to say that ever ex-Moderator was "fired" for this, however).

 

 

 

I have a name, you know. You can use it. And like I seemingly ask every single day, if you feel a post violates a rule, report it. This gets it in front of the eyes of the entire Staff. Not just me. We often make decisions via committee. It's the best advice I can give so long as you don't correlate reporting a post with validating the veracity of your complaint. In other words, just because you report it or are offended doesn't mean you're actually right. But we appreciate the heads up regardless. Every time.

 

 

 

Nah, you get infracted when you ignore Staff requests, like arguing about the process in the political section when you're asked to voice concerns privately or in the Feedback section, as you've done here. So long as you can maintain a sense of decorum and refrain from calling everyone Deep State cucks, pompous shills, or anything of the sort, we'll get on just fine.

 

Any other questions?

 

Yes. You refer to trump as a Russian agent. Compare him to Charlie Manson. Is that not hyper partisan?

 

Also me using the word pompous to describe a post directed at me with a definition from a dictionary is exactly correct.

The moderators spend a lot of time running the website, including establishing policies, maintaining user accounts, and monitoring threads. I do think moderators are less likely to get infraction than a new user or a user with a track record for problems. But I also think that long-time users that have a good track record are likely to get the benefit of the doubt and a PM instead of an infraction for a single questionable post.

 

IMO, from what I've seen, one questionable post gets deleted. 2 or 3 questionable posts in a thread is much more likely to lead to an infraction. And if you have been following a thread and see a user has been banned, I'm first bummed that that person will not be able to post. But if I see a series of heated posts, I'm not surprised if at least one post crossed the line.

 

When I get pissed, I take a 24 hour break from the site. I'd rather have a self-imposed break than a forced one.

 

If you prefer, their site, their rules. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.

 

Good points. Good advice too

Oh and usually when I post something like this I get banned. I read somewhere on here that this is the place to bring this up. Hopefully I can get an actual discussion and not a banning but I guess we’ll see.

Just a suggestion but when a moderator is involved in a conversation that gets heated, it’s not really a great look when that moderator infarcts or band the opposing view point for engaging in the exact behavior that the moderator himself is engaging in.

 

To have an open discussion you can’t people playing by different rules. You have a moderator here infractions people for “hyper partisan” comments. In the same breath he posts that the president is a Russian agent and compares him to Charlie Manson. Completely fair if he believes that but that is hyper partisan.

 

Seems to me the moderators allow much different behavior here if they agree with the posters views. Of course the moderator has views and is human and is flawed like everyone. But if the moderator can’t make a judgement about what’s inflammatory unless it offends them only maybe they shouldn’t moderate st all.

 

Either let it be a free for all or referee it equally. To bring it back to hockey. All anybody wants is for the ref to call it the same for both teams. This place is sorely missing that objective.

 

Might be a good idea to let another moderator make judgement of the political threads because bviously the moderator currently doing so is highly partisan and unfair. He also seems to use his position as a hammer when he can’t respond rationally himself. He incites like the rest of us and when things gets heated he infarcts and bans and removes people from threads. Yet he’s a constant variable.

 

So is the China or America?

The lineup I posted all summer:

KZB

Panarin - Chytil - Kravtsov

Strome - Andersson- Kakko

 

I’m pretty close to you on this.

Definitely

Kreider Zibanejad buchnevich

Panarin strome kakko

 

At least for now until those guys come up from Hartford

 

Also this game is not surprising at all. Such a long break after such a long offseason. It’s like they are still waiting to get into the rhythm of the season. Day game to boot. Not an easy spot at all and frankly they are very young and inexperienced to expect a great response to a difficult schedule

I can see the team making a trade for a capable passing 2C. However, who is going to be available? Who would we be able to move for that position without breaking the bank?

 

- NYCKrash....LGR!!

Nobody. Good centers are hard to find and cost a lot of cap space

At some point zib and panarin will probably need to be separated.

K'Andre Miller has been suspended for a violation of team rules, associate head coach Mark Osiecki said Saturday.

 

Miller was the only player not present Saturday when the team practiced at the Kohl Center.

 

Osiecki said Miller's absence was related to the suspension, but Miller is still with the team and involved in off-ice workouts. Osiecki, who was in charge of practice in the absence of head coach Tony Granato, didn't divulge the reason for the suspension.

 

The sophomore won't take part in Sunday's intrasquad scrimmage, Osiecki said. Whether Miller will play in Friday's season opener at No. 11 Boston College or next Saturday at Merrimack will be evaluated Monday, Osiecki said.

 

https://madison.com/wsj/sports/college/hockey/wisconsin-badgers-k-andre-miller-suspended-for-violation-of-men/article_05dd0066-0d7c-5481-90eb-8289859f26b5.html